Reliability of Wikipedia.

[leo-rcc]

Quite often I hear the criticisms on Wikipedia and I think it is time to set the record straight:

Wikipedia has no more or less errors in its articles than any other mainstream Encyclopedia written on paper, as several tests have shown since 2005. Questioning the validity of a wiki article is good and healthy, but to think that for example Encyclopedia Brittanica is a better source is just as erroneous.

The fact is that sites like Wikipedia or books like EB, should only be used as a starting point. the strong-point of Wiki are in the sited references in the bottom of articles. They link to official scientific journals, articles by experts on the subject, critics of the subject, news articles, you name it. It also has the "See also" section that might help you find other articles with other off-site references.

Furthermore the admins of wikipedia are very good at spotting vandalism and correcting errors. Quite often within minutes faulty edits are reversed, as Richard Dawkins found out.

[marcel90]

I think Wikipedia is a very useful site you can find useful info about any subject there maybe some small errors but taking into consideration the wast amount of info it's really hard to check evrything, and also the amount of information incorrect is representing a small part of it and to be honest after 4 years of "seeking" information on it I only found few errors nothing earth-shattering just minor ones

[Tiberius]

Agreed. I've been using Wikipedia for years and I haven't come across anything that is grossly inaccurate. The times I have, I have logged in and corrected it! That's the great thing about Wikipedia; there are far more people who want to help it than hinder it.

When a celebrity page is hit, the celeb complains loudly and everyone suddenly comes out and says "oooh, Wikipedia is inaccurate! Burn it!", when the truth is that it was only a minor work of vandalism. It was one fact out of billions that was wrong, and it just happened to be on a page about a celebrity. It hardly makes the rest of the article, or indeed the encyclopedia wrong.

Btw, what happened to Dawkins?

[leo-rcc]

[youtube]pH3_ftP3Z6o[/youtube]
The question starts at 37 seconds, Richard's answer on 1:50. A very nice anecdote.

[fr0d0]

I know a wikipedia admin and things are very strict, far more so than you'd think. Knowing that, I'd trust it above commercial encyclopedia.

[Kyuuketsuki]

As I said to Mark before he left:

I don't "dismiss" Wiki, I simply accept it for what it is ... a user subscribed database of documents with insufficient control over its content to be trusted. Yes they have improved this recently but there remain questions about the way it is edited, indeed one of the primary administrators was found to have edited out negative comments concerning something he was intimately associated with. Nevertheless it remains a useful starting point in anything one wishes to research ... it simply cannot be regarded as in any fashion authoritative.

Another little story about Wiki for you, hearsay I admit ... there was a debate between Gordon Brown & David Cameron and they disagreed about something or other and the debate ended as debates do. Immediately after some bright Tory runs along to Wiki and edits the article in favour of Cameron (despite the fact that Brown was actually right) in the full knowledge that the press, gullible as they are, will run to Wiki and lap it up ... and it worked. Oh it was edited back the following day but by then the damage was done!

You see the problem with Wiki is simple, it ISN'T an encyclopaedia, it a sort of debating forum. When issues arte no contentious it's fine, it can maybe be relied upon but when they are (such as the historicity of Jesus) it can't, it isn't that sort of resource.

So yeah, that means I disagree with you Leo (at least under certain circumstances)

There are a number of websites dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia and TBBH I can see why.

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

You can find websites criticizing anything. The fact remains that in terms of accuracy Wikipedia has passed many acid tests with flying colors.

I have made many searches with wiki as a starting point or giving a comprehensive explanation of matter that i didn't know about.

You seem to be under the impression that you can post whatever you like on Wiki, this is definitively not the case.

[Kyuuketsuki]

What "acid" tests?

I too use Wiki but I do not consider it to be a valid source and always seek corroborating material elsewhere ... it is absolutely no good when it comes to any contentious area and thes4e days that can include almost any area of biological science and much of geology and cosmology.

You can post whatever you like on Wiki, it is simply a matter of whether the staff (all volunteers as I understand it and, more to the point, all hidden behind handles) catch that in time and possess the relevant knowledge. The thing about real encyclopaedias is that being financially oriented they need to ensure their product is of a certain quality and as such will hire in relevant experts to write specific articles, Wiki is utterly reliant on voluntary effort, it scraped on many sites and is therefore highly penetrative and influential (arguably far greater than it deserves) and volunteers do what they do for many reasons not all of them "good".

One man was branded complicit in the assassination of John F. Kennedy for a periods of (IIRC) 132 days quite simply because one person was vindictive, the relevant moderator wasn't knowledgeable enough to catch it (TBH I think something of that potential magnitude should have been checked anyway) and the "accused" wasn't made aware of it until his son noticed it. It took him longer to get the material off scraping sites like Ask and he has yet to discover the identity of the person who posted the material (not specifically Wiki's fault but wouldn't have been an issue had they done their job properly).

The following is an article I was writing on the subject following my remarks to Mark:

The Problem With Wikipedia
I debate; I do so in a highly contentious arena that of science versus, well, non-science and usually, as an ardent supporter of science, that means I am debating against theists of some description (it can be nu-philosophers or conspiracy nuts but typically it's theists and even more typically these days they tend to be a kind nu-theist/nu-philosophy hybrid.

So I debate and typically I express an argument in my own words and usually from my own knowledge but sometimes I have to cite other sources, others do to and that’s' often where Wikipedia comes in.

Wikipedia was launched in 2001 and describes itself as a free, multilingual, non-profit encyclopaedia project whose articles can edited by anyone who can access its website and therein lies one of the problems, that anyone can edit its articles. Despite the fact that it is currently the most popular reference site on the internet a number of criticisms have been levied at Wikipedia, these are:

• Influence.
• Accuracy.
• Reliability.
• Plagiarism.

Influence
Wikipedia has a massive influence on the web, an influence it does not really deserve and this appears to be mainly due to "scrapers". "Scrapers" are sites that wish to carry advertising and to do that all they need is content and Wikipedia, with some 12 million articles, is the ideal choice, there's nothing wrong with that if the information is good but what if it isn't?

Accuracy
Critics have said that Wikipedia is inherently biased favouring common agreement over expertise and shows significant inconsistency between articles written by different authors.

Reliability
Critics have also said that Wikipedia is susceptible to vandalism (though usually only for brief periods) and the inclusion of errant data. An example of vandalism is the experience of John Seigenthaler who was cited on Wikipedia as being implicitly involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy for a total period of 132 days (longer on a number of major "scraper" sites) ... Seigenthaler has subsequently attempted to discover the identity of the libeller with no success finding that IPS's were not interested in helping him find such information as it would reflect poorly on them.

As you can see, not quite finished yet but there you go so this thread will be interesting

Kyu

[Meatball]

It's a pet peeve of mine when people question Wikipedia's integrity, because usually these people don't truly understand how it works.

The great thing about Wikipedia is that you have links to references on that page, so cross-checking is a click away. Wikipedia is as reliable as any source you can find on the internet.

In the past it was less reliable, but the community has definitely stepped up to the place to make it one of the premier reference sites on the web. You may find inaccuracies on some of the smaller, more obscure pages, but any reasonably-sized topic is almost assured to be accurate.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It's a pet peeve of mine when people question Wikipedia's integrity, because usually these people don't truly understand how it works.

Indeed

Nor understand the purpose of an encyclopedia; it's meant to be a broad reference source for the layman,not as a prime source for scholars.

I think Kyu is right. Wiki a good place to begin. I think it's perfectly OK for most of the discussions found on internet forums,which are rarely scholarly debate between peers.

If I say "Wiki says X Y or Z",in effect I'm saying "this seems reasonable and I have no reason to doubt it" However,I would not cite Wiki if writing a paper on any subject.Besides, no university teacher worth his salt would accept Wiki as a prime source. However,I understand some high school teachers accept Wiki as a source.